Mueller’s Investigation In Trouble As Judges Demand EVIDENCE And FACTS To Back Up Claims

After two years of investigations by a highly politicized FBI and a Special Counsel stacked with Clinton supporters, Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” appears to have hit a snag. Three separate judges have now demanded evidence and facts in an “unredacted format” or Mueller runs the risk having the case tossed out altogether.

Mueller’s investigation has hit a brick wall. Without any evidence, judges don’t see how it can proceed. As Zerohedge reported, the nation has been on the edge of insanity waiting for that much-promised and long-awaited link tying President Trump to Vladimir Putin, only to find out that there is no link, and the deck appears to have been heavily stacked against Donald Trump by bad actors operating at the highest levels of the FBI, DOJ, Obama admin, and Clinton camp. It looks like the real Russian conspiracy in the 2016 election was the participation of high-level Kremlin sources used in the anti-Trump dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for – not to mention the Uranium One scandal that’s being covered up by the “bad actors” and the mainstream media for Hillary. 

The first major setback to the investigation into “Russian collusion” during the 2016 election happened in February when the federal judge (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) assigned to the criminal case against Trump’s former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, demanded  Mueller’s team to turn over any “exculpatory evidence” to Flynn’s defense.

 According to Zerohedge, Flynn’s legal team never actually made this request, strangely enough. Instead, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order “sua sponte,” or at his discretion, invoking the “Brady Rule.” That rule requires prosecutors to turn over previously unfiled evidence that might have a material impact on a defendant’s case. Two days before Sullivan’s order, Mueller filed a motion for a protective order regarding the use of evidence in the case, including “sensitive materials,” which would be provided to Flynn’s lawyers by the office of the Special Counsel.

The implication was that Flynn had entered a guilty plea for reasons other than “guilt.”  We also know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn (one of whom was anti-Trump counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok) did not think Flynn was lying to them – something James Comey was recently caught lying about himself.

Fox New‘s Judge Andrew Napolitano thought Sullivan’s decision at the time was a complete bombshell.

“Why would he we want that after General Flynn has already pleaded guilty? That is unheard of. He must suspect a defect in the guilty plea. Meaning, he must have reason to believe that General Flynn pleaded guilty for some reason other than guilt.” –Andrew Napolitano

Is it not possible he just plead guilty because of the financial burden it created and is creating on our family?? https://t.co/gx5sLLa1K9

— MFLYNNJR (@mflynnJR) April 23, 2018

Speculation is now swirling that Flynn pleaded guilty because unless one is extremely wealthy, federal investigations have a way of bankrupting anyone else.  “Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money — more than $125,000 — and making a visceral impact on my children.”

Then there’s the judge in the [Paul] Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a “motion to dismiss” hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn’t produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation. –Zerohedge

And what could be the final nail in the investigation’s coffin, was last week’s ruling by federal Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, denying Mueller a trial delay over the high-profile February indictment of 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 US election.  Mueller accused 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities (one of which was Concord Management and Consulting) of “knowingly and intentionally” conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. But Mueller didn’t expect Concord Management and Consulting to fight back.

I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys — Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm — filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politicohere. –Powerline Blog

Mueller was just denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, and will likely be forced to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire “Trump collusion” probe.

Evidence continues to mount that this probe was nothing more than a public relations (propaganda) campaign from the very beginning.  Most of us could see through it, though.

H/T Zerohedge

This article has been contributed by SHTF Plan. Visit www.SHTFplan.com for alternative news, commentary and preparedness info.